3. Is it Necessary to Refute Marx in Order to Refute the Narodniks?

Pyotr Maslov thinks it is
necessary. “Elaborating” his silly “theory”, he
tells us for our edification in Obrazovaniye:

“If it were not for the ‘fact’ that the productivity of
successive expenditures of labour on the same plot of land diminishes, the
idyll which the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Social-Narodniks depict
could, perhaps, be realised: every peasant would use the patch of land he
was entitled to and apply as much labour to it as he liked, and the land
would ‘reward’ him for every ‘application’ with a corresponding quantity of
products” (No. 2, 1907, p. 123).

Thus, if Marx had not been refuted by Pyotr Maslov, the Narodniks would,
perhaps, be right! Such are the pearls of wisdom that drop from the lips of our
“theoretician”. And we, in our simple Marxist way, had thought that
the idyll of perpetuating small production is refuted not by the
bourgeois-stupid “law of diminishing returns”, but by the fact of
commodity production, the domination of the market, the advantages of
large-scale capitalist farming over small farming, etc. Maslov has changed all
this! Maslov has discovered that had it not been for the bourgeois law refuted
by Marx, the Narodniks would have been right!

But that is not all. The revisionists, too, would have been right. Here is
another argument advanced by our home-grown economist:

“If I am not mistaken, I I Pyotr Maslov] happened to be the first
[that’s the sort of fellow I am! I to lay special emphasis on the
difference between the significance of the cultivation of the soil and of
technical progress for the development of farming, and, in particular, for
the struggle between large-scale and small production. Whereas the
intensification of agriculture and the further expenditure of labour and
capital are to an equal extent less productive both in large-scale and in
small farming, technical progress, which increases the productivity of
labour in agriculture as it does in industry, creates enormous and
exceptional advantages for large-scale production. These advantages are
determined almost entirely by technical conditions.” ... You are
muddling things up, my dear man: the advantages of large-scale production
in commercial respects are of great importance.

“On the other hand, cultivation of the soil can usually be applied equally
in large-scale and in small farming”.... Cultivation of the soil
“can” be applied.

Evidently, our sagacious Maslov knows of a type of f arming which can be
conducted without the cultivation of the soil... “For example, the
substitution of multiple-crop rotation for the three-field system, an increase
in the quantity of fertilisers, deeper ploughing, etc., can be equally applied
in large-scale and small farming, and equally affect the productivity of
labour. But the introduction of reaping-machines, for example, increases the
productivity of labour only on the larger farms, because the small strips of
grain field can be more conveniently reaped or mown by hand.”...

Yes, undoubtedly Maslov was the “first” to succeed in introducing
such endless confusion into the question! Just imagine: a steam plough (deeper
ploughing) is “cultivation of the soil”, a reaping-machine is a
“technical implement”. Thus, according to the doctrine of our
incomparable Maslov, a steam plough is not a technical implement; a
reaping-machine is not the further expenditure of labour and
capital. Artificial fertilisers, the steam plough, grass cultivation
are “intensification”. The reaping-machine and in general most
agricultural machines” represent “technical progress”.
Maslov “happened” to invent this nonsense because he had to find
some way of wriggling out of the “law of diminishing returns”, which
technical progress has refuted. Bulgakov wriggled out of it by saying:
technical progress is temporary, stagnation is constant. Maslov wriggles out of
it by inventing a most amusing division of technical progress in agriculture
into “intensification” and “technical implements”.

What is intensification? It is the further expenditure of labour and capital. A
reaping-machine, according to the discovery of our great Maslov, is not
expenditure of capital. A seed-drill is not expenditure of capital!
“The substitution of multiple-crop rotation for the three-field
system” is equally applicable in large-scale and in small
farming. That is not true. The introduction of multiple-crop rotation also
calls for additional outlays of capital and it is much more applicable
in large-scale farming. Incidentally, in this connection see the data on
German agriculture quoted above (“The Agrarian Question and the
‘Critics of
Marx’"[1]
).
Russian statistics, too, testify to the same thing. The slightest
reflection would reveal to you that it could not be otherwise; that
multiple-crop rotation cannot be applied equally in small and
large-scale farming. Nor can increased quantities of fertilisers be
“equally applicable”, because big farms (1) have more cattle,
which is of the greatest importance in this respect; (2) feed their cattle
better and are not so “sparing” of straw, etc.; (3) have better
facilities for storing fertilisers; (4) use larger quantities of artificial
fertilisers. Maslov, in a really “impudent” way, distorts
well-known data on modern agriculture. Finally, deep ploughing
cannot be equally applicable in small and large-scale
farming either. It is sufficient to point to two facts: first, the use of
steam ploughs is in creasing on the large farms (see above-quoted data on
Germany; now, probably, electric ploughs
too).[2]
Perhaps even Maslov will realise that these cannot be “equally”
applicable in large-scale and small farming. In the latter
it is the employment of cows as draught animals that is
developing. Just think, great Maslov, can this signify that deep
ploughing is equally applicable? Secondly, even where large and small farms
use the same types of draught animals, the latter are feebler on
the small farms, and therefore there cannot be equal conditions in regard
to deep ploughing.

In short, there is hardly a sentence in all Maslov’s vain attempts at
“theoretical” thinking which does not reveal an inexhaustible amount
of the most incredible confusion and the most astonishing ignorance. But Maslov,
unperturbed, concludes:

“Whoever has clarified for himself the difference between these
two aspects of the development of agriculture [improvement in cultivation
and technical improvement] will easily upset all the arguments of
revisionism, and of Narodism. in Russia.” (Obrazovaniye,
1907, No. 2, p. 125.)

Well, well. Maslov is a non-Narodnik and a non-revisionist only
because he succeeded in rising above Marx s rough notes to the point of
“clarifying” for himself the decrepit prejudices of decrepit
bourgeois political economy. It is the old song set to a new tune! Marx
versus Marx—exclaimed Bernstein and Struve. It is
impossible to demolish revisionism without demolishing Marx—announces
Maslov.

In conclusion, a characteristic detail. If Marx, who created the theory of
absolute rent, is wrong, if rent cannot exist without the “law of
diminishing returns”, if the Narodniks and revisionists might be right
did that law not exist, then, it would seem, Maslov’s
“corrections” to Marxism should serve as the corner-stone
of his, Maslov’s, “theory”. And so they do. But Maslov prefers
to conceal them. Recently the German translation of his book, The
Agrarian Question in Russia, appeared. I was curious to see in
what form Maslov had presented his. incredible theoretical banalities to
the European Social-Democrats. I found that he had not presented them at
all. In facing Europeans, Maslov kept the “whole”
of his theory hidden in his pocket. He omitted from his book all that
he had written in repudiation of absolute rent, the law of diminishing returns,
etc. I could not help recalling in this connection
the story about a stranger who was present for the first time at a
discussion between ancient philosophers but remained silent all the
time. One of the philosophers said to the stranger: “If you are wise,
you are behaving foolishly; if you are a fool, you are behaving wisely.”